Abortion may be an issue of some contention, but that should not allow one to take a worse position for what amount to very poor reasons.

1) Abortions are a necessity.
2) Medical decisions are sacrosanct.
3) Forced birthing is far worse than any abortions.
4) Carrying a pregnancy to term is dangerous.
5) Abortions are often medically necessitated.

1) Women get abortions if not legally then illegally. There was a time in this country when women would come into the emergency room with a prolapsed uterus and end up dying of an infection because she got an abortion from a shady-poorly trained individual with a coathanger. In the Dominican Republic where the Catholic church has a significant amount of clout if a women comes into the emergency room with uterus problems she is handcuffed to her bed and becomes a crime scene and often faces decades of incarceration because she didn't want to give birth to the child conceived via a violent rape.

2) It is not the place of the government or anybody else to force medical decisions on people. Human beings must be first and foremost when it comes to what does and doesn't happen with their bodies. If you opt for surgery, it isn't my place to second guess your decision. You have medical sovereignty over your body.

3) The typical ideological and philosophical underpinnings behind the abortion debate are the same as those behind opposition to birth control and any amount of reproductive freedom of women. And though it may sound noble to suggest that a small cluster of cells has unalienable rights, even though I flake off more cells that that in a typical day, let's keep our eye on what is actually occurring. These people want forced births. It is their belief that women need to have lots of babies and that that is their duty and their desires amount to absolutely nothing.

4) Carrying a pregnancy to term may be dangerous, not simply in the cases of ectopic pregnancy where doing so would certainly kill the mother, but even a healthy pregnancy is a very dangerous undertaking and should not be taken lightly. An abortion does carry a small amount of risk but far less than other options. And these pros and cons of risk must weighed by the individual who will be undertaking these risks.

5) Ectopic pregnancy, tubal pregnancy, as well as a wide variety of other issues often medically necessitates an abortion. Not all pregnancies could be carried to term in all cases because either the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother or the fetus would not be viable.

---

The counter-arguments typically argue that a cluster of cells without so much as a nerve differentiated yet is as worthy in terms of rights as a woman whose medical decisions, life, and reproductive freedom would be tossed out the window to appease a few religious nuts. We should, as a society, try to minimize the number of abortions by giving women more opportunities and more lines of support both economical and psychological, however we do not take the path of forced births and back-alley hanger abortions because we want fewer abortions to occur.

In a just society we need control over our medical decisions and reproductive freedom.

In this debate, I am against abortion as a practice, but that does not necessarily mean I am for illegalizing them. This position will be made more clear in my response to my opponent's first contention.

1] My opponent points out that if we illegalize abortion, people will continue to get abortions in back alleys with coathangers. Notice that I am against both types of abortion - back alley and doctoral. Indeed, as my opponent points out, back alley abortion is more dangerous than abortion when performed by trained doctors.
My opponent also brings up the Dominican Republic and the problems caused by the Catholic Church there due to their foolish plan of just making abortion illegal. Making it illegal does not stop it, which is why I am not necessarily for keeping it illegal. I am simply arguing that it is extremely immoral.

2] There are certain decisions the government is allowed to stop you from making. For instance, you cannot steal from someone. More relevantly, you cannot kill someone. It is a point of some contention whether fetuses are to be considered human at different stages in their development, but under this logic it should also be arbitrary whether we should be allowed to kill human children. They aren't fully developed humans yet, so if that reasoning can morally justify killing a fetus, it should justify killing a child.
But like I said, I do not necessarily think the government should outlaw abortion, since that really doesn't stop the actual practice, and it is the practice I am against rather than the fact that abortion is legal.

3] Indeed, many contend that it is an issue of reproductive freedom. However, once there is a fetus, the woman has already chosen to reproduce. This is not a choice that can be undone, just as we cannot choose to not have children after they are already born. Whether your child be living under your roof or in your body, you do not have the right to end he or her life.

4] My opponent points out that killing a fetus may sometimes eliminate danger for other, fully developed humans. While this is true, the conclusion my opponent wants us to come to from it is preposterous. If killing a 2-year-old would save a fully developed person's life, society does not view that as a moral act. Neither is this true for a one year old, or even a newborn.
The fact is, if a pregnancy is becoming dangerous to the mother, that's just too bad. The pregnancy was the mother's choice. If a person is dying due to some other choice, such as smoking, and could kill one of their children to save themselves, we would never view this as moral. Sometimes, our choices lead to unexpected dangers, and we cannot simply kill to escape these dangers, at least not justifiably.

5] Carry over my arguments from point 4. If it is necessary for me to kill someone to live, even a developing child, that is not a justifiable thing to do.

===

My opponent points out that fetuses are such simple forms of life. However, let us realize that we value human life based on future value, or based off simply being human life.
Consider - a baby a few weeks after birth can do barely anything and has the mental capacity of some animals. However, we value a newborn baby's life just as much as a fully developed person's life, at least as far as morality is concerned. We can kill these animals for sport or meat, but killing a baby for these purposes, a baby who has the same mental capacity as these animals, is not even questionably justifiable. We value human beings based on the fact that we are humans, not based off what stage in development we are in.

Claiming that being against abortion is being against women's rights is like saying being against murder is against people's rights.

In a just society, we need the right to life, whether we are an old man, a middle aged man, a young adult, a child, a newborn baby, or an unborn. To say that 'reproductive freedom' or 'control over our medical decisions' gives us the right to take life is ridiculous. Exercise reproductive freedom by avoiding pregnancy, not by killing someone to get out of it. Make medical decisions that deal with your own life, not medical decisions that end another person's.

And that, as they say, is that. Remember, again, that I do not know what course of action I would advocate taking against abortion. However, I would probably not be in favor of illegalizing it, since that doesn't do anything to stop the practice from going on [like my opponent pointed out in his first point]. My position is therefore just that Abortion is morally wrong, like any other form of murder on any other developmental stage of human life.